Article Summary: Supreme Court Case

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

HOLDING: The defendant King made the statements when he was in custody so therefore the investigation was no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, it was centered upon him violating the Criminal law which made an effect on the both defendants’ convictions.

A landmark Supreme Court case is one in which a precedence is set and there is an impact on society. There are many reasons for the importance of landmark cases and the studying of such cases. Some of these reasons are to study how the judicial branch works, try to understand how decisions made in the judicial branch affects laws and everyday life, and predict how current issues and cases will be affected by past decisions (The Judicial Learning Center, 2012). There are many examples of Supreme Court cases that are considered to be a landmark, but one example is Texas vs. Johnson.

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

On July 17, 2014, 43 years old black man named Eric Garner was selling loose cigarettes illegally on Staten Island. As the polices approach Erica to make their arrest, he raised both hands in the air and requested for both officers to not touch him. Meanwhile, the second officer came behind Eric and put him in a choke hold in order to restrain the 350 pounds man down to the ground. After he was restrained to the ground both officers roll him over onto his stomach. Within seconds after being roll over to his stomach Erica Garner repeatedly shouted to the police officer, "I can't breathe!", while he was laying on his stomach face down to the sidewalk pavement. Suddenly, the 350-pound black male died of compression of the neck from the officer's

Thomas Clayton's attorney, Ray Schlather of Ithaca, asked for more information from the prosecution. The prosecution says they have given the defense more information than they are entitled to, but they say the favor has not be returned. Wetmore, says he will provide any exculpatory information, but will not hand over the entire case file.

The Gagnon v. Scarpelli case established additional constitutional protections for probation and parole hearings by addressing the right to counsel (O’Leary & Hanrahan, 1978). The Supreme Court reviewed Morrissey v. Brewer in their consideration of the Gagnon v. Scarpelli case, and the justices determined probation and parole revocation hearing should follow the same judicial procedures (O’Leary & Hanrahan, 1978). Therefore, since Scarpelli did not receive a hearing for the revocation of his probation, the Supreme Court stated that Scarpelli’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process were violated citing the Morrissey v. Brewer precedent (Florida State University Law Review, 2014). Furthermore, the decision concerning a probationer or parolee’s

Katz was convicted of transmitting wagering information over a telephone booth in violation of federal law. The government had placed a listening device on the top of the telephone booth and recorded Katz’s end of the telephone conversations then used it as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected Katz’s argument that the evidence should be suppressed and affirmed the conviction, finding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation since there was "no physical entrance into the area occupied by" petitioner. The court held that the protection of the Fourth Amendment follows the person, not the place.

Holding: The court did decide that the government should indeed notify arrestees of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. Their right to remain silent and their right to have legal counsel if necessary. If the suspect decides to exercise their fifth amendment right the interrogation must stop. Without reading these rights any information obtained from an arrestee in an interrogation will not and cannot be used in

In 2009, the Journal of American Medical Association wrote that at least 13,000 infants will be born dependent on some sort of substance, and DrugRehab.org says that eight million children have a parent that is addicted to substances as well. Now, most laws do protect the baby from a drug addicted mother, mainly in the event of a stillborn. While having a baby with brain damages and problems caused by the mother’s substance abuse, the mother will also suffer complications during childbirth (Sarah Blustain). Barry Lester found that 320,000 pregnant women suffer from alcoholism or the use of drugs. He views that their punishment is based on what society deems is criminally wrong and believes it is a disease that should be treated at a mental health facility not prison or jail(Drug-addicted mothers need treatment, not punishment). Drug addicted mothers, pregnant or not, pose a threat to a child’s safety, and therefore, should be punished.

After a monumental decision from the US Supreme Court on June 26th, 2015 in favor of a bill legalizing nationwide same sex marriage, the first official same sex marriage license in Cleveland was granted to Chris Richardson and Keith Garrett, a couple stating that they had been together for 18 years. At 12:30 pm the same day, the marriage was performed by Judge Anthony Russo, marking the first legal gay marriage for the city and signifying a major step towards equality for all people.

By the 14th Amendment, the right to cross-examine those witnesses, is made applicable to the States.

The United States Supreme Court case Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), full case name: Edmund Brown; Governor of the State of California and Kamala Harris; Attorney General of the State of California v. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association, was a landmark Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality and technicality of California’s Assembly Bill 1179 (2005).

hearings is to further the transparency course as espoused by the sixth amendment of the constitution. However, the open criminal proceedings are at the discretion of the judge because there are some trials that touch on national security or where minors are involved. During this deliberation, the judge is informed by the first amendment of freedom of press and speech, but these rights must be weighed according to prevailing circumstances. In such cases, the judge will issue order barring the media from either full or partial coverage of proceedings (Waye & Marcus, 2004).

“You have the right to remain silent , anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided, do you understand the rights as i have just read them to you, with these rights in mind do you wish to speak to me ”(Dallas Justice Department).